show_mesh_graph

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool replaces the working buffer, which is a significant side effect. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors such as required permissions, performance impact, or error conditions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with two sentences and a brief Args line. It is front-loaded with the primary action and every part serves a purpose, except possibly the quoted phrase which adds style but no essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the main action and the buffer replacement side effect. It does not discuss prerequisites (e.g., active mesh socket) or return values, but the output schema likely covers the latter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameter 'name' is described as 'Layout name' in the Args section. Given 0% schema description coverage, this adds some meaning but is minimal. The description does not explain the default value or accepted values beyond a string.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it visualizes a live MeshSocket network as a graph layout with animated nodes/edges. It is specific about the resource (mesh network) and action (visualize/build/push), but does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like show_grid or show_qr.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or use cases for selecting this tool over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.